June 22, 2011

There's a hole in your boat!

This is good news for Republicans, supply-siders, and those who like to stick their ideological economic heads in the sand: the rich are getting richer. The top 0.1 percent of the population (those making about $1.7 million or more) now have an average income of $5.6 million per year. This is a 385% increase since 1970 (inflation adjusted). Think of all the jobs the rich people must create! Think of the rising tide, which raises all boats! You do understand how the tide works, right? Except for the fact it's a pretty shitty analogy when applied to the economy.

The bottom 90%? The 137 million rest of us (my income happens to be in the 89th percentile--personally, I'm doing just fine)? Our income decreased 1% since 1970. The average income for 90% of Americans: $31,244.

You might think this is fair. Capitalism at its finest. But it's not. You see, it's easier to make money when you have money. Because then you can charge rent (literally and figuratively). Because then you can lobby (ie: bribe) politicians to have the system give you more money. Because you can create virtual monopolies. Just cause it's (barely) legal doesn't make it right.

You see, the system? It ain't on the level. I think of Paddy "Chicago Ain't Ready For Reform" Bauler's other line: "Them guys in the black suits and narrow ties, them Ivy-League types, them goo-goos - they think the whole thing is on the square." Except these days it's not the Ivy-League types who think that. It's too many of the rest of us who have been deceived. It's people who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, buy the crazy idea that tax breaks for the rich benefit the rest of us.

It's no surprise that the rich look out for their own self-interests. But the rest of us don't have to help them! For starters, we have to put words and concepts like "income redistribution" are taboo. There is nothing "communist" about progressive taxation. And there is much evidence to support the idea higher taxes on the rich benefits all of society. And that even benefits the rich.

The part I find most salient is the ability of the rich to advance their interests via the government. I do not begrudge a person's success, but when they use the force of the state to disadvantage their competitors they acting immorally and against the good of society. For this I'd like to see less meddling from the officials b/c they so often favor their rich friends, less subsidizing and tax breaks for companies... fewer bailouts - banks or automakers.

I don't begrudge a person's success. I just want to take some of their profits to pay for a working and civil society -- the society that is the foundation upon which their success is based.

And remember those companies that we bailed out because "they were too big to fail"? Well, why haven't we made them smaller? Unregulated Capitalism has never succeeded. The very idea that regulated capitalism is somehow bad is a shockingly new concept. And dangerously flawed.

Of course the companies won't do this on their own. How great to be large, making billions in good years and knowing that if things go wrong, the government will cover your loses.

As Yakov Smirnoff used to say (maybe he still does), "What a country!"

The markets will always be, and have always been regulated. I don't think "we" needed to make them smaller - I think letting them fail would have made them a proper size. I find the ease with which you endorse "taking" other people's rightfully gained success. If a company makes it's profits without subsidy or other state advantage (I know, this isn't common for big ones) then all profit it makes is a result of making other people better off already through the voluntary exchanges of goods and services. So they have been improving society.I expect this to not resonate, but isn't it true that when you exchange (buy or sell) you improve your lot (or try to)? I expect the objection will be based on how some people don't have good alternatives. This may be true, but it doesn't mean that the exchange wasn't undertake in an attempt at self-benefit by both parties.

The exchange does indeed benefit both parties. But think of a country without minimum wage laws. People will still work for whatever they can get. Even if it isn't enough to feed your family, it's better than nothing. One meal a day is better than no food.

So working for sub-sustenance wages can be in your best interest. In that sense it is a "good" exchange.

It's exactly why the government needs to step in and demand better labor laws and/or a government safety net funded by the profits of corporation who could, but choose not to, pay their workers more.

But then minimum wage laws tent to hurt employment, b/c some jobs just aren't worth that legal lower limit to the employers... Pretty much every company in the world could "pay their workers more" to some degree. The idea that someone who has no involvement in the company is in a better position to set the exchange, or that you and I have the right to task someone to set the rules of interaction between two other people, is problematic from moral reasons (assumption of power over others) and ignorance (we lack knowledge and direct stake in the matter).Generally we agree that the rich get too much help staying that way from the government. I just think adding power to the government and expecting it to not help the rich more is a futile pursuit. Got your book yesterday (Cop in the Hood)

It is dangerous to tackle the economy issue when you have rich and poor in your mind. It's fallacy (wink wink). Take a step back, think of yourself as a tax law professional and may be you will understand the matter little better. I don't know much about tax law but according to my legal research professor: tax law is the most hideous to study. However, may be we can start with something simple: practice Separation of State and Church by prohibiting money laundering between any entities(including the government, corporation, individual, charity, non-profit, church, or any religious establishment)

Peter Moskos is a professor and chair of the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He is the director of John Jay's NYPD Executive Master's Program, on the faculty of the City University of New York's Doctoral Programs in Sociology, and a Senior Fellow of the Yale Urban Ethnography Project.

Moskos graduated from Princeton (AB) and Harvard (PhD) and was a Baltimore City Police Officer. He has authored three books: Cop in the Hood, In Defense of Flogging, and Greek Americans.

Me in 2000

Me in 2016

Critical Acclaim for Cop in the Hood

Cops like the book, Cop in the Hood:

"Should be made mandatory reading for every recruit in the Balto. City Police Academy. ... I am so proud that you were a Baltimore Police Officer and a good one." —Colonel (ret.) Margaret Patton, Baltimore City Police Department

"I just finished reading the last footnote! Great stuff." —NYPD Lt. Detective (ret.) David Durk

"I have been a cop now for 23 years and your book really captured what it's like to be a street cop. . . . Great book, great insights." —Detective-Commander Joseph Petrocelli

"Moskos strips away hard to decipher cop-speak and sociological mumbo jumbo and presents something easily digestible by the average reader.... Moskos is a veteran of a war [on drugs] he disagrees with. But he has walked the walk, respects the brotherhood and, as far as I’m concerned, still bleeds blue." —Pepper Spray Me

"Truly excellent.... Mandatory reading for all fans of The Wire and recommended for everyone else." —Tyler Cowen

"Ethnographic chutzpah.... Perhaps the best sociological account on what it means to police a modern ghetto.... Tells a great story centered around notions of race, power and social control." —Andrew Papachristos, American Journal of Sociology

"[An] objective, incisive and intelligent account of police work. Moskos's graphic descriptions of the drug culture... are the most detailed and analytical to be found anywhere. —Arnold Ages, Jewish Post & Opinion

It could have profound consequences.... In Defense of Flogging forces the reader to confront issues surrounding incarceration that most Americans would prefer not to think about. —Mansfield Frazier, The Daily Beast

“Flogging” is intriguing, even in — or because of — its shocking premise. As a case against prisons, Mr. Moskos' is airtight. —Washington Times

Compelling… Although his outrageous idea may conjure up unsavory reminders of U.S. slavery, by the end of “In Defense of Flogging,” Moskos might just have you convinced. —Salon

One of the very few public-policy books I've encountered that goes past wringing its hands over a societal problem.... Moskos's sharp little volume has a potential audience far beyond the experts. —Rich Fisher, Public Radio Tusla

A very important work... provocative, timely, and well-argued. I agree with you completely that our criminal justice system is out of control.... On one hand, the problems seem intractable. On the other hand, we're doomed if we don't do something about it. —(Former) CIA Agent John Kiriakou

It was, in truth, a book that I could not put down. I read it in two sittings (my butt was hurting after the first!)... You did well. —Gary Alan Fine, John Evans Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University.